California Supreme Court approves gay marriage »
Posted By SonOfTheMask 1 year, 1 month ago in StyleSAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
444 Views Share Story 70 Comments Report
Submitted By:
SonOfTheMask
"I often wish that I could rid the world of the tyranny of facts. What are facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 383 of 384 Comments (view all)
-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago
FTA: The state high court's ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: User banned.29 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ontherock1 year, 1 month ago
The whole thing is just GROSS!!!!
Gay marriage, Domestic Partner Rights???
What's next?? I have been living with my cousin since I was 9 and we want benefits too???
This country has gone MAD!!!
It's really frightening. Yes a woman can love another woman like a sister and men the same as brothers BUT this whole gay/homo thing is just WRONG!!!!!
People smack a male dog for trying to hump another male dog because it's just WRONG!!!!!
Reply-
HmacComment removed: User banned.70 Replies
-
0%
Grrr1 year, 1 month ago
"on the rock" is appropriate. Time to put the pipe down.
You do realize that such rampant phobia is usually a symptom of latency, right?
Reply -
0%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
But that male dog will still hump that other male dog. It's nature.
Reply
-
-
0%
Itachirumon1 year, 1 month ago
Ontherock - I'M a Californian, so you and abntv can rah rah rah go f*ck yourself rah rah rah today! We win, but we truly hope you'll be gracious losers, we're being gracious winners. Well...I'm not because I think you guys need to suck on the third rail of a subway track but that's just me and my inherated New Yorker temper
Reply -
-
-
0%
TimALoftis1 year, 1 month ago
The Human Rights Campaign(HRC) message concerning todays victory.
Reply -
-
-
0%
quiescence1 year, 1 month ago
I look forward to the day when marriage rights will be extended to gays in all states. To deny someone a basic human right based on their sexual orientation is not only immoral, but it is utterly inconsistent with the notions of equality intrinsic in the U.S. legal system.
Today is indeed a great day for civil rights.
Reply -
-
0%
raats66621 year, 1 month ago
And HOW do you figure?
The federal government, who has NO say whatsoever in marrying ANYONE, now has the Protection of Marriage Act on the book which says that states do NOT have to honor the marriage license issued by another state to a gay couple?
If the state of New York tried to say that my Kansas marriage license was not valid there would IMMEDIATELY be a lawsuit and I would win easily. If the FEDERAL government tried to pass THAT law it would be thrown out, but it's absolutely OK to do that to a gay couple.
If you are REALLY interested in "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage".....make it HARDER to get divorced.
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year, 1 month ago
No one is asking for special rights or special protection. I personally think the semantics of the "marriage" argument are just ridiculous! I could care less what it's called...as long as ALL the same rights are applied.
I know the Southern Baptists would never marry a gay couple....but then, I wouldn't be caught DEAD darkening their doors anyway.... And gays and lesbians still do have options if a church ceremony is wanted: The Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, and many Episcopal Churches come to mind..... I'm just saying that the government should only grant civil unions to everyone regardless of sexual orientation - instead of marriage licenses to heterosexuals only - and that churches should then be free to bless the unions of their choosing with ceremonies.
The rights of marriage are what are important. And California has at least taken a giant step toward treating all of its citizens fairly.
Reply -
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 1 month ago
Wolfie2007- As a heterosexual you have the right to marry someone you love, someone you are attracted to, don't you? (minus family members).
Homosexuals do not have the same right.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago
I have a lot of respect for James Marcus and Tom Drapeau and several others. I don't think there was anything malicious happening here, I just don't understand the need to change it at all. It's a news item, why the need to change it at all? Nixie might have the right of it.
Reply -
0%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
It's called 'load balancing', and you agreed to it when you signed up to post here.
Really, most everything on here is 'News' in the first place, so placing articles under appropriate categories makes things easier to find.
Reply -
0%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
Then don't come here! If you hate it here so much, why are you here?
Reply
-
-
0%
tanglang1 year, 1 month ago
This is absolutly outrageous! Once again a judge decides that Voters do not have thr right to make laws! FTR, my outrage is not at the outcome, but at the fact that a judge overturned the voters decision. Why should one man have the power to make decisions for tens of million of people?
I would think that even the gays who would normally be happy aboput a victory such as this would be outraged at how the decision came about. Do we really want judges who legislate from the bench making our decisions for us?
Reply-
0%
ZippySpincycle1 year, 1 month ago
See, there's this thing called Marbury vs Madison that comes into play...you might want to read up on it some time.
Reply -
-
0%
1-2-Oscar1 year, 1 month ago
Voters certainly DO have the right to make laws, but under our Constitutional system they do NOT have the right to make laws which infringe upon the rights of other members of society. For this reason courts have (properly) struck down many laws, including those which mandated racial segregation and denied equal rights to women. What we have here is simply an extension of that very valid principle to a group of citizens who do not enjoy widespread public support--but they are still citizens.
Reply -
0%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
It's called the Judicial Branch of the government. The people do have the right to make laws, but if those laws violate the constitutions of either the state or the nation, the judiciary has the power, nay, DUTY, to over turn them.
Sounds like the people behind the ban are doing the procedurally correct thing, working to change the state constitution.
Reply -
-
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago
The legislature, the representatives elected by the people to make the laws, has twice, TWICE passed laws to permit gay marriage, and ONE man, not a panel of learned jurists, but a foreign-born ACTOR, has vetoed it TWICE. It would seem that TWO branches of the California government agree, and only ONE MAN has been blocking the proper path.
Reply -
0%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
No. Judges decided that a law passed by voters is unconstitutional. Very different. Try to keep up.
Reply
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago
I believe civil marriage is a states' rights issue. If California defines its civil marriages to include same-sex marriages, so be it.
However, I'm a staunch supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal government should not recognize same-sex marriages and neither should other states that define civil marriage as between a man and a woman.
PS - Should have been a stand-alone comment, not a reply to 1-2-Oscar.
Reply-
-
0%
raats66621 year, 1 month ago
However, I'm a staunch supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal government should not recognize same-sex marriages and neither should other states that define civil marriage as between a man and a woman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with the Defense of Marriage Act is that it is a FEDERAL law (which has no jurisdiction on marriage-states not federal law issues ALL marriage licenses in this country) that violates the 10th Amendment to the constitution (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.) while at the SAME time telling states that they can violate the rights of SOME people from a state.
There isn't a court anywhere that would rule on the side of Iowa if Iowa said "you can't be served at this McDonald's because you are from Florida." But HE'S from Florida too? "It doesn't matter, he's OK and you're not."
Reply -
-
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
The Federal government should recognize all marriages that a state recognizes as marriage is an issue of the state and not the Federal government. Basically, the Federal government should just accept the ruling of the state that the said marriage would have taken place in.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
this is a civil rights issue. not a religious issue.
the right to marry, and all the rights that go with marraige, need to be available to everyone.
funny thing is, the biggest winners at the end of the day will probably end up being divorce lawyers anyway.
Reply-
0%
Locky121 year, 1 month ago
Yay! I love it when the will of the people is thwarted and imposed by an oligarchy!
Civil Rights? More like Stalinism.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
I guess California is on track for the next major disaster. Just think of the headlines:
"California Wildfires are God's Punishment for Gay Marriage"
'Cause you know, California NEVER has wildfires...
Reply -
-
0%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
Ah, Global--you ARE doing a Goppy-like parody of know-nothing (especially about one's own unconscious impulses) moralistic homophobia, aren't you?
Otherwise, what POSSIBLE difference can it make to ANYONE if two people of the same sex want to get married? (Remember, folks, you don't get to impose your religious convictions on others.)
Of course the lordy-what-next? argument is spurious: animals and children can't give consent, and polygamy is a crime in all states(though compliance isn't always enforced, as we've recently seen).
Indeed, to reiterate what Tim said just above: California, we're proud of you!
Reply -
0%
mypityourpit1 year, 1 month ago
bad california
are people missing the bigger picture here. it was a law that was given to the people to decide by a vote. it was voted on and did not pass. we are encouraged to vote so "our voices can be heard", "we can make a change". we do that and in return it gets over turned because someone didn't like how the vote turned out.
if we continue to do things like this, rather it's smoking bans or same sex laws, we are essentially telling people that their voice doesn't matter, and isn't that what this is about, why the voter approved law was overturned???
Reply-
-
-
0%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
When your voice is voicing something that oppresses another American for no reason, it deserves to be overturned.
Reply
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.39 Replies
-
0%
indianacookie1 year, 1 month ago
Other countries have tried the gay marriage thing and now marriages are not happening and not lasting Divorce is on the rise and marriages are on the decline. Besides the fact that every society as far back as the Romans have fallen after they adopted this attitude about gays and lesbians. Marriage is a religous institution and not some excuse to make political statements.
Besides all that, why are unelected judges allowed to make law I thought that was the job of our elected representi... should be worried about this unelected officials making law? Better beware
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
Garbage. Where are your statistics backing up any of your anecdotal claims? Gay marriage is legal only in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Canada, and Massachusetts until today's ruling. Marriage as a CIVIL institution has existed for some time, but as a religious experience is not as old as you might think. As for the judges in Cali, how can you be so sure that they are not chosen by democratic principals? They are not elected so they are not prone to political pressure. They need to be isolated from the whims of the voting populace. After all, we do not elect our federal judiciary!
Come back when your claims are valid.
Reply -
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
Eh? Divorce is on the rise not due to same-sex marriage, its due to the attitude of the baby-boomers and the redefining of what marriage is and is meant to be. Marriage isn't really meant to be to happily fulfill yourself, its to form a family and raise the next generation. Considering all the children out there who are difficult to adopt, wouldn't you want say a couple who are incapable of conceiving by themselves as of now (two men) adopting kids? Studies show that they are just as well adjusted as kids raised in a heterosexual couple's home. Considering this I can see same-sex marriage being a boon to our society, not the end of it.
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 1 month ago
indianacookie: "Marriage is a religous institution and not some excuse to make political statements."
Are you telling me that atheists can't get married?
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 1 month ago
indianacookie: "Other countries have tried the gay marriage thing and now marriages are not happening and not lasting Divorce is on the rise and marriages are on the decline."
I tried to find some statistics on Canada. With more than 20,000 same-sex marriages performed, I could come up with only a handful of divorce requests. I'm sure it will rise with time, but do you know what the divorce rate is among heterosexuals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_...
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago
The judges made no law. They threw out an unconstitutional law. That is their job. This is written in short sentences. Read slowly. If you do not understand, re-read.
Reply -
0%
GentleGiant1 year, 1 month ago
Bull.
"On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun1 year, 1 month ago
God bless the CA Supreme Court!
They are 'the gift that keeps on giving'!
They have just done MORE than anyone could have to ENSURE the passage of the PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE California constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
The sponsors just recently submitted over 1.1 MILLION signatures, which is well above what was needed to qualify.
Check out the amendment yourself:
All I can say today, is "Thank you, Chief Justice Ron George and your three fellow elitists on the Court", for spitting in the face of the 61% of Californians who voted to protect marriage between a man and a woman in 2000.
You four are worth tens of millions of dollars of campaign commercials, at the minimum!
To paraphrase Joseph, "they meant it for evil, but the Lord meant it for good."
Reply-
-
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago
I am afraid you are probably right about this one. Wonder what will become of all the same sex couples married in the interim between June and November. Make no mistake, there will be thousands.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
pimgsa1 year, 1 month ago
And then we sit back and wonder why this world we live in so so f@#$%? up!! Its like Sodom & Gomorrah all over again. They say if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat he'll never realize it and will stay there till he bursts. Thats exactly where were headed WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Reply -
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
the article is improperly titled. Agree with their decision ot not, the California Supreme Court did not "approve" gay marriage. They said that allowing one group of partners to marry but prohibiting that status to another group is discriminatory, and violates the California Constitution.
I am not a student of California Constitutional law, so I can't say whether this is legislation from the bench or the court simply doing its job and interpreting the constitution.
I do know what discrimination means, though. And saying couple A can marry because I like their style but couple B cannot, because I find them disgusting. That IS discrimination. If California voters want to write discrimination into their constitution, so be it. But let's avoid the cloaking of terms.
Reply -
-
0%
markoller1 year, 1 month ago
The whole premise of the gay-lib movement is as asinine as the character Stan's desire to have babies in the movie, "Monty Python's Life of Brian."
Stan
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me
Loretta.
Reg
What?
Loretta
It's my right as a man.
Judith
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta
I want to have babies.
Reg
You want to have babies?!
Loretta
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg
But...you can't have babies!
Loretta
Don't you opress me!
Reg
I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the
foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a
box?
cont.
Reply-
0%
markoller1 year, 1 month ago
Loretta
Sniff.
Judith
Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually
have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's
fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to
have babies.
Rogers
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right
to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg
What's the point?
Rogers
What?
Reg
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when
he can't have babies?
Rogers
It is symbolic of our struggle against opression.
Reg
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
http://www.angelfire.com/movies/closedcaptioned...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
Within the United States that becomes less cut and dry. Actually it does become cut and dry. A church doesn't have to marry a gay couple if they do not wish to because marriage in a church is not a legal matter and thus, government is not involved.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
markoller1 year, 1 month ago
There is a more important freedom: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There is some freedom of speech in America, because it is impractical to censor every private remark. Brezhnev's Russia was no different. The Internet is a kind of free press, but finding heretical ideas on the Internet is like prospecting for gold. The newspapers and mass media, however, are absolutely totalitarian.
The mainstream media would no more call homosexuality a perversion than it would call the 9/11 terrorism an inside job. Professional organizations are also prohibited from suggesting that homosexuality is unhealthy in any way. The schools from the first grade through the university level are PC brainwashing centers, especially with respect to the pro-homosexual political correctness. Of course, no one explains why it is necessary to silence the idiots who disagree with gay-lib.
Reply
-
-
0%
ningyo1 year, 1 month ago
aside from the actual issue..this is about whether we live in a democracy or anarchy..this ruling was created by judicial fiat where there is no actual legal basis..justice george and his pals found law in the california constitution that doesnt exist--in other words he created new law from the bench..prop 22 was voted on and passed by 61% in the most liberal state in the nation..and in the fall a similar MAJORITY will vote to change the california constitution and reverse what is already the most reversed court in the country..its what liberals continue to do when they cant get their way at the ballot box and legislature..they find some activist judge to find standing for them where none exists..and we must continue to reverse these insidious perversions of our courts
Reply-
0%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
Actually, we DON'T live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic, so stuff like this happens.
BTW, as pointed out earlier, the state legislature TWICE passed bills saying same-sex marriage was okay. Both bills were vetoed. Is that the same sort of 'anarchy' to which you refer?
Reply
-
-
0%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
Here we go again, drudging up this issue just before a election. Did anyone check to see if the judges that ruled on this where Democrat or Republican? I have a feeling it's just a convenient way to bring up a dividing issue.
Reply -
0%
Teagen1 year, 1 month ago
This is a perfect example of an activist court that should be changed. The people of California clearly voted on what they felt constituted marriage. That being between a man and a woman. Now their state supreme court has decided to usurp the will of the people by re-writing laws. Where's the checks and balances? When do the law makers come forward and say, hold on, we write the laws, you enforce them. Once again we see the dangers of liberals in power. It's not the right wing controlling or telling you what is right and wrong, it's the libs. Do as I say not as I do.
Reply-
0%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
My understanding is that five of six of the "activist" judges were Repugnant Con appointees. So it's not really the 'libs' if you're going to take that route.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
And speaking of "activist" judges, Teagan, have you taken a look at the recent decisions of the Supremes (and I don't mean Diana Ross and)?
So "activism" is what judges are guilty of when their decisions don't follow our own politics.
Let us retire this term, invented, I believe, by the right, and certainly enthroned by Bush and Co., to stigmatize those whose opinions differ from what we, the "right-thinking" (pun, if you like) believe.
Reply -
0%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
Uh, ningyo, above: what's your problem with gay people marrying one another?
Please explain how such offends your sense of truth, justice and the American way?
Reply -
0%
Will13131 year, 1 month ago
Teagan can preach about activist judges.. but as a woman.. she should be aware that without "activist judges" she would not have NEARLY the rights she now has.. voting being one of them.. and piloting a military aircraft would be another no no...
by the way the Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion...
REPUBLICAN.... CONSERVATIVE....
I can't wait until the US Supremes uphold the handgun law in DC...
Reply -
0%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
Yes, Will, I'm always astounded--as well as saddened--by people who can't or refuse to recognize where their actual interests lie.
Which fact guileful pols, particularly of recent memory, exploit with redmeat nonissues like flag-pin wearing, blacks moving into your very own nabe--or the highest elected office--gays threatening the institution of marriage, preachers WHO HATE AMERICA!!!, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Meanwhile, Rome--I mean the US--burns.
Reply -
0%
jasmine50001 year, 1 month ago
I keep hearing this, 'the will of the people' are being ignored by a judge. What they forget to mention is some times the will of the people are wrong when its their intention to discriminate or oppress.
Then its a judges right to. How long would segregated schools have lasted if the courts waited in kansas till the people approved integration of black and white children. possibly still today there would be separate schools. so what if a biggoted populous is against it. their wrong and should be overruled.
Reply -
0%
markoller1 year, 1 month ago
There is more to tolerance than kissing homosexual butts. It also includes tolerance for disagreement. Without disagreement there would be no opinions at all. We would be reduced to plant life.
Reply -
KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.
-
KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
mcarpentry1 year, 1 month ago
12oscar, as you stated "their sheer numbers" their sheer numbers voted to have marriage defined as one man and one woman. And again an out of control judge(s) has made a mockery of the Peoples vote!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.